] As the election approaches, the attacks grow more bitter,
] from both sides. Personally, I think the Bush aligned
] forces have made the more specious claims so far -- the
] anti-Kerry Swift Vet claims have been large disproved by
] nearly every major newspaper in the country -- but I
] don't think there's anything inherently Republican or
] Democratic about baseless vicious campaign techniques.
] Next election, or next week, Democrats may make the more
] bogus charge.
]
] The media finds it easier -- and more importantly,
] cheaper and thus more profitable -- to turn every charge
] into a "he says, she says" story. Voters say they don't
] like negative ads, but people assume that where there's
] smoke, there's fire; and studies have repeatedly shown
] people respond strongly to negative campaigning. Analyses
] of the substance of the attacks are buried deep inside
] the newspapers, while the inflamatory rhetoric of the
] charges are put above the fold, on the front page.
]
] As long as this tactic works, candidates and their
] surrogates are not going to avoid outrageous charges.
] Such avoidance would be irrational, since it would just
] lead to them being defeated by candidates who have no
] such scruples. The way to take the air out of these smear
] tactics is to focus on the truth of claims, and to
] quickly dismiss stories that are contradicted by the
] evidence. That should be on the front page. Candidates
] whose surrogates repeatedly resurrect already disproved
] charges should be criticized. Repeatedly. On the front
] page.